IN AN E-MAIL INTERVIEW WITH THESE REPORTERS, GINA CHON EXPLAINED SHE HAD LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO START AN AFFAIR, "BRETT [MCGURK] HAD BLUE BALLS. BLUE BALLS!
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT CAN DO TO A MAN? LOOK, I VOTED FOR GEORGE W.
BUSH BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN WAR AND SLEEPING WITH HIS MAN IN IRAQ WAS
DOING MY PART FOR THE WAR EFFORT! WE DID NOTHING WRONG!"

ASKED
WHY, IF SHE DID NOTHING WRONG, SHE CONCEALED HER AFFAIR FROM HER
EMPLOYERS, GINA CHON E-MAILED BACK THAT SHE HAD TO GO, THAT SHE WAS
WORKING ON A BOOK ENTITLED 'BLUE BALLS CAN BE DEADLY' AND THAT SHE WAS
"BORED WITH WORDS THESE DAYS SO IT WILL PROBABLY BE A PICTURE BOOK. YOU
KNOW, SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS!"

Today disgraced former Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon attempted to shove Jesus off the cross so she could climb up there herself. Gawker posts her e-mail:

I've
seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters
but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S.
The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for
the last two years, look like a playground.

But
underneath the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of
two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later
married. In the process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place
where we lost many friends.

I'm not trying
to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along the way and
for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four years ago in
Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken.

I
want you to know, though, that while I worked in Iraq for the paper,
Brett never gave me sensitive or classified information nor did he trade
his knowledge for my affection. We were both dedicated professionals
too committed to our jobs and had too much respect for each other to do
anything like that. And as individuals, it's simply not who we are or
how we approach our work. Nor did he need to. He was authorized to speak
on occasion on background with journalists and did so with me, the Washington Post, the New York Times and other news outlets.

Gina
Chon, you were not a 'dedicated professional.' If you had been, you
would have followed the ethical guidelines of journalism as well as the
Dow Jones written ethical policy you signed. If you were a 'dedicated
professional,' you would still be working for the Wall St. Journal. So stop lying.

Let's go through some of that.

I've
seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters
but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S.
The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for
the last two years, look like a playground.

How
typical that all she could recall is the ugliness. Most people would
embrace the humanity or see a mixture. How telling that she chose to
wallow in the ugliness. The glass is always half full, chipped and
unwashed for Gina.

And what venom? Most
newspapers and outlets have ignored your huge lapse in journalism
ethics. Jokes have yet to circulate about you -- but they are coming,
they are. You did wrong and you got caught.

The
fact that you were fired and you still can't admit that it was your
fault goes to your lack of maturity and your failure to practice your
profession ethically.

But underneath
the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of two people
who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married. In the
process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place where we lost
many friends.

The full truth is you
were forbideen to sleep with your sources. The full truth is you
ignored the Dow Jones ethics policy. The full truth is you violated
it. A lapse? One tumble might have been a lapse. But you didn't
inform your editor of what happened and a 'lapse' turned into an affair.

I don't give a ___ whether you sucked him
off to glory or you rode him to ecstatsy, Gina Chon. I give a damn that
you lied to everyone including the readers.

You
do not sleep with government officials you are supposed to be
covering. You are obviously as stupid as you are unethical to even
write such a whine. The one thing you had going for you was that people
respected the fact that you appeared to be taking your lumps without
bitching and moaning in public. You've blown that. Now you're just
another pathetic scandal, someone who gets caught and refuses to take
accountability.

We have wall between press and
state in the US. Maybe that's news to you, Gina. But unlike in China,
Iran and other countries, we don't have state control of the media.
When you're sent to cover Iraq for the Wall St. Journal, readers
have a right to believe that you're doing it to the best of your
abilities. When you sleep with a US government official, that throws
that belief out the window. You violated the ethics, you showed your
copy to McGurk -- which is what outraged everyone and why they suggested
you resign immediately or they could fire you on the spot.

You lost your right to whine about "loss" in the War Zone. You know why?

Because
you're the cheater. Ask John Edwards, the cheater doesn't get to
whine. You cheated on your husband, Brett McGurk cheated on his wife.
While that's not our focus here when you try to play utlimate victim you
better grasp that you and Brett can't pull it off. You're two people
who didn't keep your vows. Public sympathy goes to the spouses you
cheated on. Try another trick, Gina.

I'm
not trying to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along
the way and for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four
years ago in Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken.

You know what, Judith Miller probably would love to still be at the New York Times.
Reporting is not a hobby, you don't dabble in it. Most people and
outlets do not say "Gina Chon reported . . ." They say, "I heard on
NPR" or "I saw an NBC Nightly News" or "I read in USA Today." You
disgraced the Dow Jones with your behavior. You're going to be in the
journalism text books now so you better start trying to come up with a
better line of argument than 'My hot loins moistened at the thought of
his throbbing member while he texted 'blue balls' to me.' It was not a
"stupid mistake," it was a gross violation of journalism ethics.
You're very lucky this came out in 2012.

Had it come in 2008, CJR would be crucifying you, The Nation
would forget the name "Judith Miller" as they went to town on you, Greg
Mitchell would do non-stop posts about you, speaking to everyone you've
ever worked with. But because Bush is out of office and your husband
is Barack Obama's nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq, these outlets and
others are down playing what happened.

It's
amazing that, as you climb on the cross, and glorify yourself, you
forget to apologize for what you did which was not "stupid mistakes."
You weren't a teenager, you weren't an intern. You were a professional
journalist working for a US newspaper with the highest circulation.
When this started, last week, I was reminded of James Brooks' Broadcast News.
Albert Brooks makes a crack. And I thought, "What is it he says? It's
about whether you'd tell a source you' loved them to get information
-- it's funny, it's . . . Oh."

"Oh"
because the butt of the joke is a woman and when that happens, we always
have to wonder, is the joke fair or not? And so I decided not to
include an excerpt of the whole
would-you-sleep-with-your-source-to-get-a-story bit which ends with
Albert Brooks saying, "Jennifer didn't know there was an alternative."
Ha-ha-ha-ha. And now Gina Chon's name can be footnoted to that joke
apparently. Guess what?

Women have not come far enough. When a Martha Raddatz (ABC News) has to talk on NPR (Tell Me More, February 22, 2011) about
covering wars and having children -- not to talk about the juggle that
so many of us who work and raise children can relate to but because
suddenly the spin for the day is 'maybe women shouldn't be allowed in
war zones,' we have not come far enough.

Women
have not come far enough in our society. We can't absorb your
inability to follow the basic ethics, Gina. Your actions betray women.
Not because you cheated on a 'sister,' but because you were such an
idiot that you have taken the Iraq War, where women came to the
forefront of reporting -- and had to pay for that already by having the
scapegoat for the war itself be a woman (Judith Miller) -- and put that
accomplishment at risk, put it at risk of turning all of the work into a
dirty joke. Women have not come far enough to afford your ethical
lapse.

Jane Arraf, Lara Jakes, Rebecca
Santana, Deborah Haynes, Nancy A. Youssef, Sabrina Tavernise, Alyssa J.
Rubin, Tina Susman, Alexandra Zavis, Ellen Knickmeyer, Erica Goode,
Deborah Amos, Cara Buckley, Anna Badkhen, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Liz
Sly, Alice Fordham, Deborah Haynes, Sahar Issa and many other women
have risked a great deal to report from Iraq. Your name used to be on
that list. Check the archives, earlier this year we were still
including you here on that list.

You should
be apologizing to women in the profession for you failure to follow the
ethics policy. One woman on the list in the first sentence of the above
paragraph has been dogged by false rumors that the US military brass in
Iraq fed her stories because she was sleeping with a general. We've
talked about that before here and how her male colleagues were the ones
spreading the false rumors. It wasn't a rival outlet, it was her own
colleagues. Jealous over what she was doing and feeling petty so they
spread rumors about her. She kept her head up, ignored the rumors and
continued (and continues now) to do her work.

Gina
Chon, that woman knows about being persecuted. She knows about being
turned into a joke. And she was innocent of the slander her male
colleagues spread. She didn't climb on the cross and play the victim so
why you think anyone should give a damn that you wish you hadn't been
caught violating the ethics of your profession is beyond me.

Now
we haven't gone there here. We've tried to make it about Brett
McGurk. I'd hoped to not write about you at any length. But when the
so-called media watchdogs refused to bark over the fact that you had a
sexual relationship in Baghdad with a Bush official while covering Iraq,
we had to wade in. But there are several barriers I still haven't
crossed. For example, we haven't examined your part in the 2008 e-mails
here or even quoted from your own 2008 e-mails. In addition, I was
asked by a Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about your
reporting from that period and I tried to play dumb and he pointed out
that I was stalling and I said, "I'm just not comfrotable with that
question."

Gina Chon, if you continue to try
to play the world's utlimate victim, I can easily say, "Check out the
story filed ___, paragraph three, specifically ___" and you and I both
know what I mean.

Because of Barack the media
watchdogs -- which apparently are partisan as the right has long charged
-- aren't doing their job and you're very lucky for that. But I can do
their job for them. And I will if you don't stop trying to play
injured party. You violated journalism ethics and just as a reporter
who plagiarizes gets fired, you lost your job. Quit trying to make it
about love. You weren't fired for falling in love. You were fired for
sleeping with your source, you were fired for sleeping with someone you
let see your copy -- your former bosses say "vet," you say "seek
feedback."

ASKED
IF THIS WOULD HURT HIM WITH MEN OUTSIDE OF N.Y.C., CAMPAIGN GURU DAVID
AXELROD AGREED THIS WAS A POSSIBLE PROBLEM "BUT WE JUST HAVE TO TRY TO
MAKE HIM APPEAR MANLY ELSEWHERE."

WHICH MEANT KEEPING HIM AWAY FROM THE BIG UGLY LAST NIGHT.
AXLEROD EXPLAINED, "I TOLD HIM, 'YOU GO STAND NEXT TO SARAH JESSICA
PARKER, YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE IN SHORT PANTS. SHE'S TIRED, SHE'S OLD,
HER CAREER'S DEAD AND SHE'S THIS CENTURY'S MISS HAVISHAM.' DIG ME, I
MADE A LITERARY REFERENCE!"

Thursday, June 14, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, War Criminal
Colin Powell said his 2003 UN speech was about inspections but today
let's slip the decision to go to war was already made, CJR
self-embarrasses with a novel concept on journalistic ethics (If you
marry, it wipes the slate clean -- quick, someone tell Stephen Glass,
Janet Cooke and so many others!), the political crisis continues in
Iraq, Senator Patty Murray has some tough questions for Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta, and more.

Collie The Blot Powell continues to plug his bad and co-written (Tony Koltz) book It Worked For Me: Killing and Lying.
It's really amazing the way the liar keeps saying more than he means
to. But a War Criminal, like any other criminal, has a compulsion to
confess (as Freud and Theodor Reik both argued). You can't turn a trick
without a john and a whore. Presumably Colin played the role of the john for Kira Zalan (US News and World Reports).
We learn that Powell sees meaning when an elderly man is unable to pay
attention to a discussion both due to age and to illness but to Collie
it's a life lesson about division of labor. As usual, he discusses
the blot and for those fearing Colin's suddenly become part of the
Neville family, it's not a facial blot. It's the fecal smear on his
public image that won't wipe off. It's the lies he told the United
Nations in an attempt at kick starting the war on Iraq. Collie first
floated the blot on TV in an interview he gave to Barbara Walters for ABC News. After it aired, September 2005, Ava and I wrote about it:

Walters
says, unable to look at him while she does -- oh the drama!, "However,
you gave the world false, groundless reasons for going to war. You've
said, and I quote, 'I will forever be known as the one who made the case
for war.' Do you think this blot on your record will stay with you for
the rest of your life?"Powell:
Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who
presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the
world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record.

Possibly.
Such as when Powell informs Walters that the fault lies with the
intelligence community -- with those who knew but didn't come forward.
Unfortunately for Powell, FAIR's advisory steered everyone to a Los Angeles Times' article from July 15, 2004:

Days
before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for
war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found
dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new
documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures
released last week.Two memos included with the Senate report
listed objections that State Department experts lodged as they reviewed
successive drafts of the Powell speech. Although many of the claims
considered inflated or unsupported were removed through painstaking
debate by Powell and intelligence officials, the speech he ultimately
presented contained material that was in dispute among State Department
experts.

But
instead of discussing Iraq's weapons in terms of "possibilities" or
"estimates," Powell spoke before the United Nations last February with
certainty.

"These are not assertions,"
Powell told the Security Council. "What we are giving you are facts and
conclusions based on solid intelligence."

Powell
qualified only one of his remarks during the 75-minute presentation,
saying there was some "controversy" over the intended use of
high-strength aluminum tubes. On all other issues, Powell left no room
for debate. He used the phrase "we know" 32 times.

And
when I gave it, people stopped and listened. And the president by that
time had already decided that combat would be necessary, he decided that
sometime in January. And now it's 5 February and I'm simply telling
people why it may be necessary.

Today
Colin Powell tells US News and World Reports that the decision to go to
war on Iraq was made a month before his UN speech. Strange because the
day of his speech, CNN reported (February 5, 2003):

At
a lunch that followed Powell's presentation, diplomats said he
responded to the French foreign minister's concerns about the impact war
with Iraq would have on the region by saying, "I wasn't talking about
war, but about strengthening inspections."

The
diplomats said Powell also made clear to Foreign Minister Dominique de
Villepin that the United States is not ready to go to war immediately,
and is interested in hearing France's proposals to strengthen
inspections with the added value of the evidence Powell presented.

So
Colin didn't just lie to the citizens of the world in his UN speech, he
continued to lie immediately after and lied to diplomats and France's
Foreign Minister. Colin Powell is a liar. He can pretend all he wants
but the record bears out the reality that he has repeatedly misled over
and over. That is lying.

And it's really sad
that someone known for doing so little on a national level (other than
War Crimes) gets so much press attention for a co-written clip job while
former US Senator Russ Feingold put real thought and real work into While America Sleeps: A Wake-Up Call for the Post-9/11 Era and the press is far less likely to offer coverage (or swoon). Randy Hanson (Hudston Star-Observer) provides coverage on a recent book discussion Feingold gave:

His chapter on the Iraq War is titled "The Iraq Deception."

"What
I tried to do in the book is explain what happened because of our
general strategy in Iraq," Feingold said. "Everything we did was
defined on the basis of Iraq. And it was crazy, because Bush actually
said in his speeches over and over again that there were 60 or 65
countries where al-Qaeda was operating. His list included Afghanistan,
Uzbekistan, the Slavic republics, Ireland, England -- but not Iraq."

He said that while the United States was concentrating on holding Iraq, terrorist groups were expanding in other countries.

"What
I thought 9/11 showed us is what happens when we're not alert. We
learned what it felt like to be taken completely by surprise," he said,
recalling how the big news story during the summer of 2001 had been
shark attacks in the country's coastal waters.

One book is mature and thoughtful, the other pure piffle. The one with nothing to offer gets the bulk of the media attention.

It's
the immaturity that the press repeatedly embraces while pretending to
be 'high brow' in order to justify their refusal to cover actual news
stories. One example, refusing to explore serious ethical violations by
using matrimony as an excuse: "But that was in 2008, and they're
married now." Is that Margaret Carlson? No. No, it's much worse than
columnist Carlson. That's Erika Fry forced into covering the story for CJR. I was on the phone earlier today with a CJR friend for a half-hour, it was a pre-emptive call asking me to please understand . . . No, it doesn't work that way.

I
will allow that Erika Fry got stuck with the assignment (that's what I
was told, I do not know her and didn't speak to her). But she's an
assistant editor and it's Columbia Journalism Review. I'm real
damn sorry that your panties and boxers go dry when you have to
critique someone your wet dream Barack loves -- Brett McGurk. But I'm
genuinely sorry that you're such whores that you rush to minimize what
took place.

Brett McGurk is Barack Obama's
nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq. He's gotten into a lot of trouble
for numerous things but Fry ended up stuck writing about the e-mails.
E-mails became public last week (see the June 5th snapshot) that he had
exchanged with Gina Chon in 2008 when both were in Baghdad -- he was
working for the US government, she was working for the Wall St.
Journal. The Wall St. Journal let Chon go on Tuesday due to the fact
that she had concealed the affair in 2008 when McGurk was not only a US
government official but the primary source for her stories and she was
let go because she had shared stories she was working on with McGurk to
let him alter them (she stated in her defense that she was using him as a
sounding board for input).

Columbia JOURNALISM Review. And they rush to dismiss it. And they rush to treat it as no big deal. "But that was in 2008, and they're married now."

Who gives a damn?

That
doesn't change a thing. You either start having standards or you
don't. Right now, CJR has no standards at all. Judith Miller could go
back to work for the New York Times tomorrow and any argument CJR
might make would be pointless. Because right now, they're telling us,
that if you marry the source for whom you cater coverage too, it doesn't
matter that you misled readers and your editor and it doesn't matter
that your lover got copy approval of anything you turned in.

If that's the position CJR wants to take, then they are nothing but a joke.

"We
get that sex sells," Fry lies. It's not about sex, it's about ethics.
If it were about sex, we'd talk about the doggie style encounter in a
hallway. We can do that. Brett McGurk was very 'popular' in Iraq.
Gina Chon wasn't the first woman he cheated on his wife with. (That may
or may not be news to Chon.) If Fry wants to make it about sex, we can
do that.

But don't dimiss sleeping with a
source, letting your lover vet your copy and misleading the public and
your editor as it being about sex or as ethical lapses that expire
because they two got married.

This is embarrassing and shame on CJR
for this nonsense. Again, I had to listen to half hour of excuses
today. I hadn't even read the piece. I return a voice mail and
suddenly it's "Well we . . . and we . . and we . . ." Wee wee? That
about sums it up. CJR has just pissed on journalism ethics. That's not a proud moment.

NOW
FOR TODAY'S STRATEGY WHEN THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF IS EXPECTED TO MAKE A
MAJOR ECONOMIC SPEECH. WITH A FAILING ECONOMY AND A RECORD THAT MOST
1ST GRADERS COULD BEAT, BARRY O HAS LITTLE TO CAMPAIGN ON. SO WHEN YOU
HAVE NOTHING, WHAT DO YOU DO?

ATTACK.

AND AS 2008 DEMONSTRATED, NO ONE DOES BITCHY LIKE BARRY.

TODAY'S
SPEECH WILL BE ALL ABOUT LINKING MITT ROMNEY AND BULLY BOY BUSH AND
TRYING TO SCARE THE VOTERS. IT'S AN OLD WHORE'S TRICK BUT IT'S THE ONLY
TRICK BARRY O HAS LEFT.

SAID ONE WHITE HOUSE SOURCE, "CAN
YOU BELIEVE HOW QUICKLY HE WAS ALL USED UP? THIS ONE CAME WITH A
SHORTER SELL BY DATE THAN A GALLON OF MILK!"

Turning to the topic of Two and a Half Men . . . James Jeffrey, Ryan Crocker and adolescent Chris Hill signed a letter. Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports
the three signed a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
insisting that Brett McGurk is qualified to be the US Ambassador to
Iraq. Jeffrey is the outgoing US Ambassador to Iraq. Chris Hill was
the nightmare ambassador. Prior to Hill's brief stint, Ryan Crocker
served as US Ambassador to Iraq. Rogin writes, "In their letter, the
former ambassadors argue that McGurk showed his understanding of the
complexities facing Iraq in his June 6 confirmation hearing and said
that he has the full trust and confidence of the current leadership team
at the embassy. " I'm sorry, where were they?

They weren't at the hearing. I was. How can they vouch for his performance at a hearing they didn't attend?

They
can't. And this isn't the 1960s. Meaning forget the press coverage
because there was none. Note to what passes for a press corps: Your
'great job, Brett!' wasn't reporting. Most outlets ignored the hearing
completely (including TV evening news). Find a report where they report
what McGurk said and examine if it was accurate. You can't find that
in the MSM. We covered it here, the hearing, in three snapshots. We
covered what he said versus reality. We covered it in the editorial for Third as well:

It's
really easy to pretend someone's 'qualified' when you refuse to do the
work required to vet the nominee. Those links above don't go to MSM
reporting on the hearing because there is NO MSN reporting on the
hearing. They go to the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday snapshot (as
well as a 2008 snapshot for Petreaus' testimony in 2008). The press
didn't do the job they're paid to. You can say they're overworked and
many are. But that doesn't excuse anyone filing a 'report' that fails
to examine one word of what was said, that fails to provide context.
There's a world of difference a transcript and a report or a 'feelings
check' and a report. No reporting was done by the MSM on McGurk's
hearing.

AP reported
this morning that Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
were drafting a letter that would ask the White House to pull McGurk's
nomination. Aamer Madhani (USA Today) posted
the letter which expresses concern over his management experience and
his judgment (as well as his ability to work with Iraqis -- remember the
political slate that won the 2010 elections, Iraqiya, has asked that he
not be made ambassador).

Now
before the hearing we were reporting on the e-mails. I say that because
I cannot believe the stupidity of so-called professional writers.
Tuesday, June 5th, we were reporting on the e-mails between Brett McGurk
and Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon who began an affair in 2008 and concealed it from their superiors. Yesterday, Chon lost her job. Lisa Dru (Business Insider) reported on the news as well and includes the Wall St. Journal's statement:

Wall Street Journal
reporter Gina Chon agreed to resign this afternoon after acknowledging
that while based in Iraq she violated the Dow Jones Code of Conduct by
sharing certain unpublished news articles with Brett McGurk, then a
member of the U.S. National Security Council in Iraq.

In
2008 Ms. Chon entered into a personal relationship with Mr. McGurk,
which she failed to disclose to her editor. At this time the Journal has
found no evidence that her coverage was tainted by her relationship
with Mr. McGurk.

Ms.
Chon joined the Journal in 2005 in Detroit, followed by an assignment
as Iraq correspondent in Baghdad from 2007 to 2009. She also reported
for the Journal from Haiti in 2010 in the aftermath of the earthquake
and has served as a M&A reporter for Money & Investing in New
York since April 2010.

Dru's done a fine job reporting on the e-mails and the issues. We're about to get to two who are doing a lousy job.

Reality,
Chon was asked to resign and given the choice of resigning or being
fired. She opted to resign. Let's start with Maressa Brown whose work
experience is "entertainment and women's magazines." It shows, dear, it really shows.
Maressa Brown's "not quite sure Chon should have had to lose her job
over the affair itself" -- if your company has a code of ethics, you
follow it or your risk losing your job.

In
addition, those ethics were the same code of ethics of any professional
news outlet. Now I know, in entertainment writing, you're encouraged to
sleep with your interview subject. But in most fields of journalism,
you're only paid for the story, not for also granting sexual favors.

Maressa
Brown might want to consider that and might want to consider that Gina
Chon's little love life shouldn't mean a thing to the readers of the Wall St. Journal. They shouldn't know about it, they shouldn't follow it. Those rules, ethics, they exist for that reason.

The
public is supposed to be able to trust that everything is ethical.
Gina Chon's decision to sleep with her source was grounds for instant
termination. Michele Norris is one of the finest radio journalists
around. She's a host of NPR's All Things Considered.
She's got reporting chops and she's earned a reputation of being a fair
and accurate journalist. To ensure that she's seen that way, she and
NPR agreed early on that if her husband was working for a campaign, she
couldn't cover it. Last October, Norris went on an extended leave from All Things Considered. She explains why here:

Hello everyone,

I need to share some news and I wanted to make sure my NPR family heard this first.

Last
week, I told news management that my husband, Broderick Johnson, has
just accepted a senior advisor position with the Obama Campaign. After
careful consideration, we decided that Broderick's new role could make
it difficult for me to continue hosting ATC.

Given
the nature of Broderick's position with the campaign and the impact
that it will most certainly have on our family life, I will temporarily
step away from my hosting duties until after the 2012 elections.

I
will be leaving the host chair at the end of this week, but I'm not
going far. I will be wearing a different hat for a while, producing
signature segments and features and working on new reporting projects.
While I will of course recuse myself from all election coverage, there's
still an awful lot of ground that I can till in this interim role.

This
has all happened very quickly, but working closely with NPR management,
we've been able to make a plan that serves the show, honors the
integrity of our news organization and is best for me professionally and
personally.

I will certainly miss hosting, but I will remain part of the ATC team and I look forward to contributing to our show and NPR in new and exciting ways.

My very best,

Michele

Again,
Michele Norris a well known reporter with a sterling reputation for her
work. And yet, she follows the rules. She goes out of her way to make
sure there is no appearence of a conflict of interest. She doesn't
say, "Oh, well, everybody knows my husband is working on campaigns so
since everybody knows, it doesn't matter." She's a serious journalist
who takes her profession seriously.

Dow Jones
cannot afford the reputation of employing Little Ms. or Mr. Hot Pants
who's going to sleep with the source and then possibly cater the news to
benefit their lover. Dow Jones has a reputation to uphold. Chon
probably could have gotten away with what she did -- which wouldn't have
made it ethical -- if she'd worked for a different outlet. But Dow
Jones is a considered a trusted name and the reason for that is they
don't tolerate unethical reporters.

People
need to let go of the idea that this is love story or it's a happy
ending. I'm not concerned with whether Chon's found happiness or not.
I'm concerned with the fact that she was the chief reporter on Iraq for
the paper in 2008 and she was sleeping with a US government official.
That would be the ultimate embed. How much did that color what she
reported?

I don't know and that's a question
that a real news outlet never wants any news consumer to have to ask.
That's why there is a code of ethics.

Bonnie Goldstein (Washington Post) wants
to talk about the "brutal" confirmation process while, as an aside,
noting the e-mails didn't come up in the hearing. No, they didn't. As I
explained here already, I learned about the e-mails in a senator's
office (a senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). (I
overheard a conversation, there was not a leak.) That was Tuesday
afternoon. The Committee was aware of the e-mails on Tuesday (the day
before the hearing), they just weren't aware if they were genuine or
not. (I can say a great deal more about that on the Democratic side but
I'll stay silent right now while I wait to see what happens.) McGurk
was fawned over. In addition, this story should have been all over but
it's not. The Washington Post is covering it. One of the few papers
that is. CJR has daily blogs and were just posting about 'racy e-mails'
last week but they've ignored this story and the ethics involved.
Goldstein writes:

Having read some of the correspondence in an excerpt in the Above the Law
blog, I have to say it presents unusual but material evidence of
McGurk's qualification to work with the reconstruction team and the
Iraqi government. His sequencing choices notwithstanding, the written
correspondence indicates the nominee possesses confidence, sincerity and
a lovely sense of humor (a quality I suspect he's needing to call on in
great quantities as this painfully personal matter gets sorted out in
public ... ).

Next time, try reading
the e-mails posted, not excerpts and trying paying attention to what
you're reading not on how wet it makes you.

In
the e-mails it is very clear -- and was on Tuesday afternoon when I
left the senator's office and pulled up the e-mails on my iPhone. It
wasn't hard, it wasn't difficult. And maybe next time you should read
all of them before weighing in. Brett McGurk's words are very clear.
Ryan Crocker did not know about the affair. Whether Crocker wants to
take a bullet for him now or not doesn't matter. It's in writing,
Crocker didn't know, McGurk was concealing the affair. Now he was
married and that's one reason he was concealing. But that doesn't
excuse it, it actually adds to more problems because when the government
sends you to another country to represent the US, you put your best
face forward. Not your trashy, bootie call face. But your best face.

(Scary thought, what if trolling for women is the best face of Brett McGurk.)

It
sure is cute to read Bonnie's stupidity and Maressa's as well. Little
girls, grow the hell up and pay attention, we're going to go over it one
more time.

Iraq is a country. It's not a
mythical place. People actually live there. Children are born there.
For children to be born -- pay attention, girls -- women have to be
present.

The Iraq War has destroyed the rights
of women in Iraq. Now I know, Maressa and Bonnie, that you're both too
lazy to have ever attended a hearing in the last year on what the State
Dept's doing in Iraq. But among the excuses they've sent lower-level
flunkies in with is that they are working on women's rights.

Yes, the country that destroyed Iraqi women's rights now will supposedly fix them.

So
Bonnie, Maressa, tell me how in a country in which so many males are
embracing fundamentalism, in which so-called 'honor' killings regularly
take place (women are put to death -- usually by family members -- for
so-called crimes against 'honor' -- sex, divorce, being the victim of a
rape, etc.), tell me how Iraqi women can comfortably visit the Embassy
if Brett McGurk is the Ambassador?

Brett
McGurk is all over the Iraqi press. Kitabat, you name it. They are
covering this story. No surprise. And McGurk's got a little reputation
now in Iraq. So tell me please, Bonnie, Maressa, how the hell are
Iraqi women going to be served by a US Ambassador they can't be alone
with unless they want to risk an honor killing or something more.

Let's
be really clear, the only males that get killed for these
so-called 'honor' killings are ones thought to be gay. The man that
sleeps with a woman or that rapes a woman or that divorces is not put to
death. Just the woman.

And you want to tell me that Mr. Can't Keep It In His Pants is the best Iraqi women can hope for?

Bonnie
and Maressa, it's time you both woke up and realized that your
little fantasies of romance are something you should save for when
you're alone, Right now you should be focusing on Iraqi women. No, it
won't bring you to orgasm, but less focus on yourself for once in
your lives might make you better women.

Essay
topic: What is the connection between thinking and writing? Short
answer: Maressa and Bonnie demonstrate there is none. They not only
ignore the fact that a man who sends out blue balls e-mails to a woman
he has not yet slept with probably isn't the one to supervise female
employees, they also don't even bother to consider the fate of Iraqi
women. Shame on you both, shame, shame.

It's official: The Barack Obama administration is now
the least accountable administration in modern history. How did it earn
that dishonor?

When Rupert Murdoch's Wall St. Journal
shows stronger ethics than your administration, there is a problem.
When Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon and married Bush administration
figure Brett McGurk decided to get hot and heavy in Baghdad in 2008,
each was violating written policies of their employers. At present
McGurk is still attempting to become US Ambassador to Iraq. Gina Chon,
however, has parted with employer today.

Howard Kurtz (Daily Beast) reports,
"Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon resigned on Tuesday over her
relationship with a U.S. official who is now President Obama's nominee
to be ambassador to Iraq." Lisa Dru (Business Insider) reports on the
news as well and includes the Wall St. Journal's statement:

Wall Street Journal
reporter Gina Chon agreed to resign this afternoon after acknowledging
that while based in Iraq she violated the Dow Jones Code of Conduct by
sharing certain unpublished news articles with Brett McGurk, then a
member of the U.S. National Security Council in Iraq.

In
2008 Ms. Chon entered into a personal relationship with Mr. McGurk,
which she failed to disclose to her editor. At this time the Journal has
found no evidence that her coverage was tainted by her relationship
with Mr. McGurk.

Ms.
Chon joined the Journal in 2005 in Detroit, followed by an assignment
as Iraq correspondent in Baghdad from 2007 to 2009. She also reported
for the Journal from Haiti in 2010 in the aftermath of the earthquake
and has served as a M&A reporter for Money & Investing in New
York since April 2010.

That's
what Lisa Du was explaining yesterday, "Aside from the fact that Chon
probably committed the biggest no-no in the journalism industry by
sleeping with her source, McGurk, by the way, was apparently still married when he and Chon had their rendezvous in the summer of 2008,
the Washington Free Beacon is reporting." And McGurk also had a
written code of conduct. We knew McGurk was hiding the affair from his
bosses (and he was hiding it because it was a violation of the written
rules of conduct he signed and agreed to follow). And it's the point Erik Wemple (Washington Post) makes today,
"Not alerting an editor to a relationship with a ranking official in
the center of her beat is a job-ending breakdown. Though a grace period
must apply to the initial stages of courtship, Chon had progressed
beyond that point, as the e-mails make clear. Let's just say that if
you're discussing masturbation with a high-ranking lover/source, you have some news for your editor. The statement from the Wall Street Journal states that Chon neglected to take that step."

And more troubles keep coming Brett McGurk's way. Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports
on Senator Mark Kirk, "One Republican senator [Kirk] is now making an
issue out of McGurk's role in the case of Ali Musa Daqduq, the alleged
Hezbollah commander who wastransferred from U.S. to Iraqi custody last December and acquittedin
an Iraqi court last month. He remains in Iraqi custody pending an
automatically triggered appeal, but could be released thereafter. "

Who?

In May, Mike Jaccarino (Fox News -- link is text and video) quoted
Charlotte Freeman stating, "It was like a pit (opening) inside of me. I
briefly read it and couldn't read on. I couldn't go there. It wasn't
like he was dying again. It was more shock that these people get away
with what they do. There's no justice. It's amazing and shocking to me
that someone who did what he did could go free." That was her reaction
to the news that Iraq planned to set freem the man who allegedly killed
her husband, 31-year-old Spc Brian S. Freemen as well as 22-year-old Spc
Johnathan B. Chism, 20-year-old Pfc Jonathon M. Millican, 25-year-old
Pfc Shawn P. Falter and 25-year-old 1st Lt Jacob N. Fritz. The 5 US
soldiers were murdered in January 2007. The US military had Ali Musa
Daqduq in custody along with others who were said to have orchestrated
the killings. But they let go of the League of Righteous members in the
summer of 2009 to help out England (5 Brits had been kidnapped -- only
one would be returned alive after the League was released). They kep
Daqduq in US military custody. What happened?

December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported
on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis, "He was
transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration 'sought and
received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes,' according to
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in
Washington." Though US Senators objected to his being handed over to
Nouri's legal system, the White House insisted he would be prosecuted
and, if for nothing else, he might do eight years for entering Iraq
illegally!

5 deaths. Brutal deaths. This was
an attack that involved kidnapping. And Barack was fine with Ali Musa
Daqduq just getting a slap on the wrist for entering Iraq without the
proper travel visa. Then on May 7th, Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported
that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqduq of all
charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five U.S.
troops." This is currently on appeal but it's not exepcted to be any
trouble for Ali Mussa Daqduq to walk on all charges. Kitabat reported
in May that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why he was
released. It was also noted that a number of US Senators were asking
the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to
Guantanamo or another facility.

Was Brett McGurk involved in those decisions? He was in Iraq as the decision was being made and as we quoted him in last Wednesday's snapshot telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

In
my last assignments in Iraq, I participated in almost every internal
conversation -- both inter-agency and in Baghdad -- about how not only
to plan the transition after our troops were withdrawing but also uhm,
uh-uh, how to get the size down. Uh, quite frankly, our presence in
Iraq right now, uh, is too large.

But
not that one, Brett McGurk? You were supposedly a whiz on the Iraqi
legal system. Didn't you blog about that? What happened to that blog?

Your now deleted blog? Maybe the Committee should ask you questions about that?

Starting in the US. For years and years, CJR (Columbia Journalism Review) was said to be the left-wing journalism site and AJR
(American Journalism Review) was said to be the right-wing. Over the
years, they both denied any real tilt, insisting that they covered the
media and did so with regard to issues.

But, sadly, Lisa Du is writing for Business Insider and not CJR.
She is writing about the nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq Brett
McGurk and Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon who carried on in Baghdad
in 2008 with McGurk concealing the relationship from then-US Ambassador
to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

(Does AJR tilt right? I honestly don't know. I ignored that publication until I started The Common Ills.
Then, if I was asked to highlight something from it, I did. But I had
heard it all my life and assumed it was true. The truth is that I
honestly don't know. The pieces we've highlighted here have always
been strong writing. CJR? I always assumed it was left like
me. But I kidded myself that being left didn't influence what it would
cover. I stopped kidding about that around 2008.)

Nominated for the post in March by President Obama, McGurk's
confirmation hearings finally began last Wednesday, but the bipartisan
backing he'd enjoyed having served under Bush seemed to be evaporating
in the wake of the scandal.

"Overnight, support for him has cratered," a Republican staffer on the Foreign Relations Committee told ABC News.

Nevertheless analysts told ABC they expect him to ultimately succeed in securing the position.

In a statement published on Gawker,
the Wall Street Journal said it was "looking into the matter" and that
Chon was already scheduled to go on leave this summer in light of
McGurk's nomination.

Following the leaked emails Sen.
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who is on the Armed Services Committee, has
said that he will not meet with McGurk, as he typically would, the Washington Postreported.

'Senator Inhofe always prefers to
meet with nominees personally before giving his support,' said his
spokesman, Jared Young. 'In regards to this nominee, Senator Inhofe has
heard some concerning issues, and until those issues are cleared up, he
will not meet with Mr. McGurk.'

Cheri Roberts (OpEdNews) weighs in
on Brett McGurk's nomination for US Ambassador to Iraq, "Is this the
right man to be the new Ambassador to Iraq? I think not. If a man cannot
hold up the weight of his zipper, there is no way he should be given
the weight of Diplomacy." Today Peter Van Buren offers:

State claims that McGurk is "uniquely qualified" for the job, and that he was the subject of "rigorous vetting." Yet now-authenticated, salacious emails,
which call into question his judgment, maturity, discretion and ethics
popped up online, straight out of State's own archives and blew his once
certain Senate approval on to a back burner, at best.

As part of any political vetting process, especially in the age of
the web, the candidate is asked at some point "Is there anything else?
Anything out there that might come up we need to know about? Any
skeletons in the closet, old affairs, angry ex', anything?" Because
today, if it is out there, it will surface.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is better known as
OPEC. It is run by the Secretary General. Since 2007, the former
Libyan Minister of Oil, Abdalla Salem el-Badri, has served in that
position. A conference president is not in charge of OPEC and serves
only a one-year term (and is elected with an Altnerate President who
serves that same year). Calling Abdul Kareem Luaibi "OPEC president" is
false. He's a Conference President and only presides over
the conferences. He is not "President of OPEC" or "OPEC President."
Luaibi is the Oil Minister of Iraq.

Reuters reported
this morning the OPEC is concerned that a "glut of oil" is depressing
the price per barrel of crude and Iraq's Oil Minister Abdul Kareem
Luaibi is noted in the report, "Luaibi said his own country, Iraq, would
export 2.9 million bpd next year -- up from 2.4 million bpd now. That
implies total Iraqi output of 3.4 million bpd, which would allow it to
overtake Iran as OPEc's second biggest producer. Iraq has ambitious
plans to expand production held back by decades of war and sanctions." Peg Mackey and Daniel Fineren (Reuters) report
that Saudia Arabia Minister of Oil, Ali al-Naimi, states, "Our analysis
suggests that we will need a higher ceiling than current exists."
They then state, "Iraq and Iran are expected to argue that Saudi Arabia
should reduce supplies to help support prices." The three are apparently
also divided on prices with Saudia Arabia feeling $100 per barrel of
oil is fine but Iraq and Iran wanting $125 per barrel.

Middle East Economic Survey notes
that Iraq's pushing for Thamir Ghadhban (close ties to Nouri), Iran's
pushing for one of their former Ministers of Oil, Gholamhossein Nozari,
Equador's putting up Minister of Oil Wilson Pastor-Morris and Saudi
Arabia is backing their OPEC Governor Majid al-Munif. IOGN notes, "The
selection of OPEC secretary generals is traditionally a fraught task,
typically with unexpected compromise candidates eventually being
selected." There have been 22 secretary generals so far, that covers
the period from 1961 to the present (el-Badri's term runs out at the end
of 2012). A citizen of Equador last served as Secretary General from
1979 to 1981. Iran can claim the first Secretary General and it's never
held the post since. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 has made
additional terms heading OPEC especially problematic with Arab
member-states of OPEC. Iraq has held the post only once, from 1964 to
1965 when Dr. Abdul Rahman al-Bazzaz was Secretary General. Unlike
Nouri's proposed candidate, al-Bazzaz was a pan-Arab nationalist. (He
was also a Sunni.) RIA Novisti offers
a series of photos of then-Iraqi Prime Minister al-Bazzaz arriving July
27, 1966 in the USSR for an official visit and speaking with Premier
Alexei Kosygin who headed the Council of Ministers from 1964 to 1980.
And here's one of then-Prime Minister Abd ar-Rahman al-Baazaz in Red Square.

In terms of prices, this year we have generally seen moving in an
upward direction. However, current prices are not due to market
fundamentals. Speculation is pushing prices higher. Trading is being
made on the perception of a suppy shortage, rather than evidence of any
actual or impending shortfall. It is related to geopolitics. In many
respects it can be described as a 'fear factor'.

As we are all aware, oil is increasingly being treated as an
individual asset class by finanical investors. Since 2005, the total
open interest of the NYMEX and ICE Brent crude oil futures and options
have increased sharply.

Una Galani and Christopher Swann (Reuters) note
that Iraq's increase has thrown OPEC off balance, "If Iraq's rising
output isn't calibrated with the market's ability to absorb it,
oversupply could become chronic and prices could fall further. Iraq has
said that it would like to rejoin OPEC's quota system in 2014. Rivals
may now want that to happen sooner even though Iraq will seek a large
quota to reflect its high level of reserves." In some western countries,
it all comes down to what's the price at the pump but in the oil-rich
Middle East, this is a very serious issue. Ahmed al-Jarallah (Arab Times) reports
that "Iran's representative Mohammed Ali Khatibi" is accusing Kuwait,
the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia of flooding the market and
al-Jarallah compares that accusation to the one which led Saddam Hussein
to attack Kuwait, "I
think the leaders of Iran think they can repeat the same stupidity like
Saddam Hussein or even more stupidity because on one hand the world at
the moment cannot entertain such kinds of adventures and on the other
the world will never allow it to happen under current economical
hardships witnessed by several countries."